Category Archives: U.S. national debt

Given that just a 2 or 3 percentage point drop in turnout among Republicans mean Democrats take control of Congress next year, I thought I’d list a few reasons why Republicans might want to consider skipping this election. Here goes …

1. If you like higher taxes, and you hate the explosive growth, new jobs, and higher incomes, that have lifted every American family — especially the poor — then don’t vote.

2. If you enjoy the polarization, blame shifting, and finger pointing in Congress, don’t vote. It seems like the moment the results of the last election were announced Democrats have been doing everything they can to create chaos and stop any progress at all. Imagine the congressional investigations they’ll launch if they take control of Congress. With Democrats in charge, expect even more resist, disruption, and delay.

3. If you want more violence in the streets, stay home. Groups like ANTIFA attack regular Americans with Democrat encouragement. Black Lives Matter regularly advocates for violence against police. Put Democrats in control and voters will send a clear message to these groups that their approach works and they should step it up in time for the 2020 Presidential elections.

4. If you want to replace rule of law with rule by the mob, don’t go to the polls. We all watched while Democrats found now Justice Kavanaugh guilty by allegation without the slightest shred of proof. They sought not to prevent confirmation by appealing to reason or argument. They worked to destroy a man’s reputation, career, and life — along with his wife, 2 daughters, and distraught mother — without presenting even a hint of justification.

5. If you want to stop the confirmation of conservative judges and appointees, forget about voting. Democrats have successfully stopped or delayed more presidential appointments than any congress in the last hundred or so years. Put them in charge of Congress and the trickle of confirmations will grind to a total stop.

6. If you think open borders for anyone who cares to enter is a good idea, then do nothing on November 6th. If you hate the idea of a wall, border security, or immigration enforcement; then Democrat control is for you. Don’t vote, let Democrats win, and we’ll see millions of new migrants enter America scot free. Not only that, but we’ll also see many billions more in spending on things like welfare, health care, and education for immigrants who flock here.

7. If you want more sanctuary towns, cities, and states that protect criminal illegal immigrants, then ignore election day. Crimes committed by illegal immigrants include murder, assault, rape, robbery and many more. But in sanctuary states and municipalities, police are banned from cooperating with federal authorities responsible for prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes. If you want more places where violent criminal immigrants are protected, vote Democrat in November!

8. If your heart’s desire is more government-controlled everything, then don’t vote. If you agree Obamacare doesn’t go far enough and that only a total takeover of healthcare by government is acceptable, then stay home on November 6th. Health care is only the beginning. Democrats now openly advocate socialism as a better approach than allowing free people, freely choosing, to decide our economic well-being.

9. If you’re ready to dispense with the Constitution and the freedoms it protects, forget about voting. If you agree with the left’s view that things like respect for personal freedom, individual dignity, and limited government are old-fashioned, then don’t vote. The Kavanaugh hearings were only a single shot in their assault on justice, rule of law, and freedom. They’ve been clear they also want to repeal the 2nd Amendment — by legislation or court decree. And it won’t stop there. With them in charge, our constitution and guaranteed rights will be little more than a memory.

10. If you like the idea of breaking the budget and running up even bigger deficits, don’t vote. Obama ran up our deficit by trillions of dollars — more than all the other presidents in America’s 200 year history COMBINED. More Democrats in Congress will make sure Trump and Republicans don’t return to the old-school idea of discipline and restraint in spending, that they can’t cut the size of government, make it more responsive, or bring new efficiencies.

These are just a few of the reasons you may want to stay home and let Democrats run rampant over the election this November.

Or, you can go to the polls and stop Democrat Socialist policies that will hurt our future, damage our economy, and destroy our freedom.

In this highly polarized, divided environment, every single vote counts, and with this election everything is on the line.

November 6th, it’s up to you.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a welfare program called Lifeline, popularly known as Obamaphones, which provides discounts to eligible low-income households for home or wireless telephone and, as of December 2016, broadband service. Administered by the not-for-profit Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), Lifeline disbursed about $1.5 billion in subsidies to 12.3 million households in 2016.The subsidies are paid for by all of us via a fee charged on our telephone bills.
While the Lifeline program predates the Obama administration, having been created in the 1980s, it was vastly expanded under Obama.
Now, an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that as many as 36% — more than one in three — of those supposed low-income households given Obamaphones are actually of dubious qualification.
On June 29, 2017, the GAO released an 89-page report on its findings, titled Telecommunications: Additional Action Needed to Address Significant Risks in FCC’s Lifeline Program. Here are some highlights:
(1) To begin, although the GAO recommended that the FCC conduct an evaluation of its Lifeline program more than two years ago in March 2015, the FCC has not done that. In a July 2016 Order, the FCC finally announced its plan for an independent third party to evaluate Lifeline’s design, function, and administration by December 2020.
(2) The Lifeline welfare program depends on a flawed system of over 2,000 phone companies, called Eligible Telecommunication Carriers, to (a) provide the discounts for the phone and broadband services, which Lifeline then reimburses; and (b) verify subscriber eligibility. But the GAO notes that “This complex internal control environment is susceptible to risk of fraud, waste, and abuse as companies may have financial incentives to enroll as many customers as possible.” The FCC says it will create a third-party national eligibility verifier by 2019 to determine subscriber eligibility.
(3) Given the Eligible Telecommunications Carriers’ self-interested, financial incentives to enroll as many customers as possible, it should not be surprising that the GAO investigation discovered that as many as 1.2 million — 36% or more than 1 in 3 — Lifeline recipients are not qualified for the Obamaphones. In the words of the GAO report:

“Based on its matching of subscriber to benefit data, GAO was unable to confirm to whether about 1.2 million individuals of the 3.5 million it reviewed, or 36 percent, participated in a qualifying benefit program, such as Medicaid, as stated on their Lifeline enrollment application.“

(4) Although all Americans with phone service are paying for the Lifeline program, strangely the Lifeline funds of more than $9 billion in net assets (as of September 2016) are in a private, non-government (i.e., outside of the Department of Treasury) bank account called Universal Service Fund (USF). The GAO points out at least two problems with this arrangement:

Federal government funds outside the Treasury do not have the same rigorous management practices and regulatory safeguards as other federal programs.

If the Lifeline funds are in the Treasury, some of the $9+billion in net assets could be used to offset federal debts, not to mention help reduce the crushing $20 trillion national debt.

Although the GAO had recommended in 2005 to the FCC to move Lifeline’s Universal Service Fund to the Department of Treasury, it was only this March 2017, some 12 years later, that the FCC finally developed a preliminary plan to move the fund to the Treasury. The GAO report warns that “Until FCC finalizes and implements its plan and actually moves the USF funds, the risks that FCC identified will persist and the benefits of having the funds in the Treasury will not be realized.”

Whatever misgivings the Deplorables may have about President Trump’s continuation of the neo-con’s policy in Syria or his empowerment of daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, there’s no denying these Trump effects:

(1) Budget Surplus

Confounding market expectations for a deficit, the U.S. government had a $182 billion budget surplus in April 2017, according to Treasury Department data released on May 10.

Government revenue last month totaled $456 billion, up 4% from April 2016, while government expenditure stood at $273 billion, a decrease of 18% from the same month a year earlier.

That budget surplus for just the month of April 2017 is $36 billion more than the adjusted surplus of $146 billion for the entire 2016 year.

The Trump administration’s budget surplus helps accounts for a reduction in the government deficit, which was $344 billion in fiscal 2017 year-to-date deficit — down $9 billion from the $353 billion in the same period of fiscal 2016. (Reuters)

(2) Illegal border crossing

The Trump administration’s commitment to enforcing the law has changed the reality along the U.S.-Mexico border even before a foot of the border wall is built:

Illegal immigration across the southwestern border is down a stunning 76% since President Trump was elected.

The flow of children and families across the border is down even more. The number of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children nabbed at the border dropped below 1,000 — a level not seen since before the “surge” in Obama’s second term, which he aided and abetted.

Overall apprehensions by the Border Patrol dropped to just 11,129 in April, according to numbers released on May 9, 2017, marking the lowest monthly total for any month in decades. (Washington Times)

We all know that if Hillary Rotten Clinton had been elected president, the deficits and illegal border crossings would have worsened, and U.S. taxpayers would still be paying for abortions across the world — among other ills. See:

Elizabeth Harrington reports for Washington Free Beacon that among the protesters at the “March for Science” on Earth Day, April 22, 2017, against the Trump administration’s budget cuts was Patricia Brennan, a visiting lecturer of biological sciences at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, and a native of Columbia.
Brennan has a vested interest in taxpayers’ largesse as she is a leading researcher of a taxpayer-funded duck penis study that received $384,949 from the National Science Foundation. The grant was funded through the Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus package. The study looked at the differences in the corkscrew-shaped penises of ducks.
A recent interview with New England Public Radio revealed that Brennan is still fascinated by the genitalia of marine animals. She is now using her expertise on the penises of orca whales.
When an orca whale penis recently was delivered from Sea World to her lab, Brennan exclaimed, “Holy cow. Oh wow. Oh my goodness. It’s enormous! So this is the tip right there. It’s not super long, it’s just wide.”
New England Public Radio reported that “Although Brennan has spent 20 years studying the sex organs of marine animals, she’s never seen anything this big. It takes up an entire lab sink.”
In the face of a national debt of $20 trillion, President Trump wants to cut funding for frivolous research, among other cuts. Trump’s budget blueprint would leave the National Institutes of Health with $25.9 billion, but makes no mention of the National Science Foundation that currently gets about $7 billion annually.
Since taxpayers were informed about how much her duck penis study cost, Brennan has become a “sought-after science activist,” giving lectures on how scientists can defend their research.
Brennan said of news outlets reporting the nearly $390k grant for her duck penis study, “They were attacking everything. They were attacking the science itself, like, ‘what a waste of money.’ They were attacking me, as a person, like, I must be some kind of deviant to be looking at penises. Like, who does that?”
In a self-righteous article in Slate, Brennan justified her $390k duck penis study by its important, earth-shaking findings that:

Male ducks rape female ducks. (It doesn’t take a $390k study to know this. Anyone who lives near a lake, as I did, would have seen female ducks being gang-raped by males in springtime.)

Both the vaginas and penises of ducks have evolved in response to “sexual conflict”. As Brennan puts it, with barely suppressed outrage: “Males have counterclockwise spiraling penises, while females have clockwise spiraling vaginas and blind pockets that prevent full eversion of the male penis. Male ducks force copulations on females, and males and females are engaged in a genital arms race with surprising consequences. Male competition is a driving force behind these male traits that can be harmful to females.”

New England Public Radio calls Brennan a “basic scientist,” meaning she only observes how things work and is not “necessarily applying that knowledge to a particular problem.” In other words, there is no particular reason why she studies duck and orca whale penises. In Brennan’s words, “Just the fact that we just don’t know what we’re going to find is so exciting.”
Why, like, already beleaguered taxpayers must, like, fund her, like, “basic” pointless research on, like, marine animal penises is, like, not her concern.~Eowyn

Drain the over-bloated, incompetent swamp.
From Fox News: The Social Security Administration paid $1 billion in benefits to individuals who did not have a Social Security Number (SSN), according to a new audit.
The agency’s inspector general found errors in the government’s documentation for representative payees, otherwise known as individuals who receive retirement or disability payments on behalf of another person who is incapable of managing the benefits themselves.The audit released Friday found thousands of cases where there was no SSN on file.Over the last decade, the agency paid $1 billion to 22,426 representative payees who “did not have an SSN, and SSA had not followed its policy to retain the paper application.”
“Furthermore, unless it takes corrective action, we estimate SSA will pay about $182.5 million in benefits, annually, to representative payees who do not have an SSN or paper application supporting their selection,” the inspector general said.
The inspector general also found the agency paid $853.1 million in benefits since 2004 to individuals who had been terminated as representative payees by the agency.Click for more from The Washington Free Beacon.
DCG

From Daily Mail: Donald Trump supporters are furious at Michael Moore for branding them ‘legal terrorists’.
The filmmaker used the term in an interview with Rolling Stone published Friday, saying that Trump would ‘blow up the system’ and his voters would ‘participate in the detonation’.Moore also compared Trump to a pedophile, saying voters had to protect America from the GOP nominee the way children should be protected from molesters.
His movie ‘Michael Moore In Trumpland’, which Moore has called his October surprise, came out earlier this week after just 11 days of development.Moore, once a fervent Bernie Sanders supporter who has now endorsed Hillary Clinton, told the LA Times he hoped the film would convince ‘the depressed Hillary voter’ to cast a ballot on November 8.
‘Michael Moore In Trumpland’ is based on a one-man show that Moore performed earlier this month in Wilmington, Ohio. The show revolves mostly around Moore’s support of Clinton – but he denied having written it in the hopes of converting devoted Trump supporters.
‘I did not want the racists or the crazies in there or we would have never gotten the show done,’ he told Rolling Stone. Instead, Moore said, he wanted to strike a chord with voters who typically support Democrats but where thinking of casting their ballot for Trump.‘I want them to think about the damage they could do by being a legal terrorist on November 8th,’ Moore said. Rolling Stone asked if the words ‘legal terrorist referred to any Trump voter or to anyone in particular. Moore replied: ‘Any.’
‘Legally, you have a right to vote on November 8th. You can go in there and even though you’re not necessarily in favor of Trump and you don’t like him that much and you know he’s a little crazy, you also know he’s going to blow up the system,’ Moore added.
‘The system that took your job and house away from you. You get to get back at the system now and blow it up and this is the only day you can do it legally. He’s told everybody that’s what he’s going to do. He’s the outsider who is going to ride into town and blow up the old way.’
‘So you, as a voter, get to participate in the detonation. He’s going to get a lot of votes from people who actually just want to sit back and watch the thing blow up.‘

What’s really about to blow up…

Moore later called the GOP nominee a ‘sociopath’ and said Trump had a mental illness – to the point where Moore didn’t feel comfortable ‘picking on’ Trump anymore and wanted him to get help.
‘At the same time, you have to protect the population from him like you do with a pedophile,’ Moore said. ‘A pedophile doesn’t need to be in prison; they’re sick. They have to be separated from us so they don’t hurt children. But you have to treat it that way.’
Furious Trump voters blasted Moore’s comments on Twitter. One called Moore a ‘pathetic thing’, another accused him of being ‘terrified’, and a third tweeted a story about Moore with the words ‘IDIOT ALERT’.
User Merle Patterson wondered: ‘So, Americans have #rightofchoice, unless it’s #Trump?’ Another Twitter user, Dan Foster, wrote: ‘like Michael Moore would know anything about patriotism or reality.’ Real estate broker Greg Bennett compared Moore to a ‘butt itch’, adding: ‘it’s there but you can’t scratch it, just annoying.’
Brunell Donald-Kyei, a Trump supporter and the vice-chair of the national diversity coalition for Trump, blasted Moore’s comments on Fox News, accusing ‘anyone that votes for Hillary Clinton’ of ‘aiding and abetting a felon’.
DCG

Yesterday, I received a rare phone call from my brother. He just needed to commiserate with the only person he knows who isn’t liberal and who shares his political views about the upcoming presidential election.
He complained that his wife, their two adult sons, and his friends all support Hillary Clinton and think Obama is great.
I said, “Have you asked them why they like Obama?”
He answered, “They say the economy is great! Unemployment is low, interest rates are low, the economy recovered from the recession.” He also said that his wife thinks Donald Trump is “crazy”.
Not surprisingly, they get their news from the MSM and don’t pay attention to the Alternative Media. God help us from intentionally low-information voters, otherwise called useful idiots.
So this post is for my brother. Perhaps he can email this to his sons, wife, and friends. (Probably not. This is the same brother who was silent in 2008 when one of his friends, whom I don’t know, accused me of being “evil” and a “racist”. My brother had forwarded an email from me, without my consent, of a photo of Obama carrying Fareed Zakaria’s then-recently published book, The Post-American World. My brother then very helpfully forwarded his friend’s email to me, in which his friend called me an “evil racist”.)Donna Brazile, a longtime Democrat apparatchik who, in July 2016, replaced Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as Chair of the Democratic Party Committee, sent an email to John Podesta, Chair of Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign committee, in which Brazile said:

“I think people are more in despair about how things are – yes new jobs but they are low wage jobs… HOUSING is a huge issue. Most people pay half of what they make to rent…”

Here’s a screenshot of Brazile’s email from WikiLeaks:
What Brazile wrote in her email is confirmed by a recent Harvard University Business School study, “Problems Unsolved & A Nation Divided: The State of U.S. Competitiveness 2016,” which found that the Obama economic recovery is a myth. As the 72-page report’s title suggests, not only has the economy not recovered from the 2008 recession, it has continued to deteriorate.
In the words of the report’s authors Michael E. Porter, et al.:

“America retains and enjoys many strengths. However, various economic indicators show that the U.S. economy has failed to deliver strong growth and shared prosperity for nearly two decades. These structural issues pre-date the Great Recession and are compounded by political paralysis. […]

While a slow recovery is underway, fundamentally weak U.S. economic performance continues and is leaving many Americans behind. The federal government has made no meaningful progress on the critical policy steps to restore U.S. competitiveness in the last decade or more. […]

U.S. competitiveness has been eroding since well

before the Great Recession. America’s economic

challenges are structural, not cyclical. The weak

recovery reflects the erosion of competitiveness, as

well as the inability to take the steps necessary to

address growing U.S. weaknesses.

Our failure to make progress reflects an unrealistic and ineffective national discourse on the reality of the challenges facing the U.S. economy and the steps needed to restore shared prosperity. Business has too often failed to play its part in recent decades, and a flawed U.S. political system has led to an absence of progress in government, especially in Washington.”

For those who prefer charts instead of words, the following charts from the Harvard study — on labor force participation, job creation, news business formation, productivity, household income, entitlements vs. investments — all show a continuing decline under the Obama presidency, except for the gap between entitlements and investment, which has widened.Source: ZeroHedge
Donald Trump is right in his concluding remarks at the third presidential debate last Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2016, on why the American people should elect him as president:

“When I started this campaign, I started it very strongly. It’s called ‘Make America Great Again’. We’re going to make America again.
We have a depleted military, it has to be helped, it has to be fixed. We have the greatest people on earth in our military. We don’t take care of our veterans. We take care of illegal immigrants — people that come into the country illegally — better than we take care of our vets. That can’t happen. Our policemen and women are disrespected. We need law and order, but we need justice too. Our inner cities are a disaster: you get shot walking to the store; they have no education, they have no jobs.
I will do more for African Americans and Latinos than she can ever do in ten lifetimes. All she’s done is talk — to the African Americans and to the Latinos. But they get the vote and then they come back, they say ‘we’ll see you in four years.’
We are going to make America strong again. We are going to make America great again, and it has to start now. We cannot take four more years of Barack Obama, and [pointing to Hillary] that’s what you get when you get her.“

Donald Trump is not perfect or a saint; he is his own worst enemy. But if you’re sick of what’s happened to this country for the last 8 or more years, if you are no better, or even worse, since Obama became president in 2009, then voting for Hillary Clinton is the stupidest thing you can ever do.
Listen to what she says: Hillary Clinton has no new ideas. If you elect her, you’ll get not only four more years of Obama, America will be saddled with a predominately left-wing Supreme Court who will set this country’s course for generations to come.~Eowyn

More pandering for votes.
From NY Post: Hillary Clinton is proposing limiting the cost of child care to 10 percent of family income — but the family of the Democratic presidential candidate used government-paid staffers to help raise their daughter, Chelsea.
A 1981 government audit — assessing when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas — found that the Clintons had hired a nurse at taxpayer expense to care for Chelsea. The nurse was paid $9,785 — what was then nearly double minimum wage — according to a 1981 article in the Arkansas Gazette.The nurse was listed on the payroll as a security guard, which Bill Clinton admitted was only because it was the sole empty slot available on the governor’s staff.
The Clintons repeated the trick when they moved into the White House, where nanny Helen Dickey drew a $20,000-a-year salary as a “staff assistant” to care for the first daughter.
Now, as a candidate for president, Hillary Clinton doesn’t mention the government-sponsored nanny.
“I am aware of what’s going on in the lives of Americans. And I bring different experiences, because yes, I’ve been a daughter, a mother, a grandmother. And so child care for me is not some abstract policy issue, I remember when I was a young mother and getting the child care that I needed for my daughter and so I know what the struggles are like on a day-to-day basis,” Clinton said at a January town hall in Rochester, New Hampshire.
DCG

If Americans are so stupid and devoid of a moral compass as to elect pathological liar Hillary Clinton as president, they will get their just dessert when she unleashes a tsunami of taxes that will hit, not just “the rich,” but also the middle class and every American.Based on her campaign’s own figures, President Hillary will raise our taxes by a mind-boggling $1 trillion, at least, over the next 10 years.
If you think the $1 trillion in new taxes will come from “the rich” alone, then you’re living in Lala Land.
On July 24, 2016, interviewed on CBS’s 60 Minutes, correspondent Scott Pelley asked Hillary Clinton about her planned tax increases: “Who gets a tax increase? Who gets a tax cut?”Hillary replied: “The middle class will not get a tax increase. That has been my pledge.”
When asked what “middle class” means, Hillary unambiguously replied, “Well, we say below $250,000.”
But her “rock-solid” pledge not to raise taxes on middle-class Americans is a lie, because Hillary already has endorsed the following tax increases on not just middle income, but all Americans:

1) Payroll tax hike

On January 11, 2016, during the Brown & Black Democratic Presidential Forum at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, referring to a plan called the FAMILY Act, which calls for a payroll tax increase on all Americans with wages of $113,700 and more, moderator Alicia Melendez pointedly asked Hillary if a payroll tax “were to reach your desk as President, would you veto it in order to make good on your tax pledge?” Hillary answered: “No. No.”
A video of Hillary’s tax hike admission can be viewed here. The relevant portion begins at 1:47:00.
Hillary’s refusal to veto a payroll tax is consistent with her admission on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos on December 6, 2015, that her promise of “no tax increases at all on anyone earning $250,000” is merely a “goal”.

2) $350 Billion Income Tax increase

To pay for her proposed $350 billion New College Compact — of greatly-reduced costs for all students who attend a 4-year public state college, and free tuition for community college students — Hillary proposes a $350 billion 10-year income tax hike in the form of a 28% cap on itemized deductions.

3) Soda tax

Most, if not all, Americans drink soda.
On April 20, 2016, despite her “rock-solid” pledge to the American people that she will not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000, speaking in Philadelphia, Hillary said she is “very supportive” of a soda tax: “I’m very supportive of the mayor’s proposal to tax soda to get universal preschool for kids. I mean, we need universal preschool, and if that’s a way to do it, that’s how we should do it.”The tax would be three cents per ounce of soda, which means 36 cents for the standard 12-oz. can of soda pop.
Hillary’s official campaign plan also calls for universal preschool for the entire country, which of course will have to be paid for — with higher taxes.
Hillary’s endorsement of a soda tax led her then-opponent Bernie Sanders to call it a regressive tax that would mainly hit low-income Americans. As reported by NBC News and The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross, Sanders said:

“Frankly, I am very surprised that Secretary Clinton would support this regressive tax after pledging not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. This proposal clearly violates her pledge.”
“The mechanism here is fairly regressive. And that is, it will be increasing taxes on low income and working people.”

4) 25% national gun tax

In October 2015, NBC News reported that a study found that a third of Americans said they owned at least one gun. According to the Census Bureau, the U.S. population on January 1, 2015, was 320.09 million, which means as many as 106.7 million Americans owned a gun. That number is probably larger because when asked by a polling group, Americans likely would deny they have one instead of lie that they own gun(s).
On Sept. 30, 1993, in a passionate Senate testimony, calling gun owners and dealers “purveyors of violence,” Hillary Clinton endorsed a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns and $2,500 license fees for gun dealers, saying “I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that.”

5) Carbon Tax

The 2016 Democrat Party platform endorses a carbon tax because “Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean economy and help meet out climate goals.”
Consistent with her party’s platform, Hillary’s campaign manager John Podesta recently said she would be open to a carbon tax. As reported by Politico Pro, Podesta told reporters, after speaking at an event hosted by green groups: “Right now we’ve not proposed a carbon tax. We believe we can get the job done. But if Congress wants to come forward with one, we’ll take a look at it.”
For that matter, in June 2015, Hillary’s bud, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that a Hillary victory in 2016 could pave the way for a carbon tax: “There’s one sort of [value-added tax] Democrats might be for — and that’s a carbon tax. So you might get a compromise along those lines.”

6) Other Taxes

$275 billion business tax increase through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaigndocument.

$400 billion “Fairness” tax increase:According to her published plan, Hillary calls for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

Capital Gains Tax Increase: Hillary has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.

Tax on Stock Trading: Hillary has also proposed a new tax on stock trading, which will be borne by millions of American families who have 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.

Exit Tax: Hillary has proposed what she calls an “exit tax” on income earned overseas, which would raise $80 billion in tax revenue.